The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest TwilightZone]

And if Sykes confirms Dr. Ketchum's study and results, then what? More of the same criticism. Contamination!!

Not from me, and I can't be all that unique. I don't know if there is a Bigfoot but given decent evidence I would accept it, no problem. I would love to find out its all true! So for me, either I would have to have a close-up sighting of my own or see some convincing evidence. My idea of convincing DNA evidence is frankly something that qualified scientists accept, since I don't know the science myself. From an interested layman's point of view, it looks to me like none of them are onboard yet.

From her first press release:

DALLAS,

Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study,

currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid

species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America.

Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a

human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of

modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

I know that a number of people her have interpreted her comments and her results as representing ongoing hybridization, but has she ever said this herself. If so I would love to see that quote.

Here is a podcast where Todd Disotell addresses the 15,000 years ago claim by saying that 15K years ago, it was all humans all the way down. Just posting this because it seems relevant. The way I understand Melba's claim is that 15K years ago we had a "proto-Squatch" that hooked up with a human to make "extant-Squatch", right?

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/12/05/

[Guest Tyler H]

Melba's choice to use human genetic structure to inform her assembly of the contigs, seems to be without any basis, other than preconceived desires to see this animal be classified as "human." I have no doubt that this anthropomorphic bias has 'contaminated' most of her research. Perhaps some of it will still hold up.

I am just happy that Sykes will be looking at the DNA data. It is hard to believe any chicken salad will come from this... um, mess... but if there is anything to salvage I am sure somebody with those credentials can wring it out.

Should he pronounce the findings as baseless, I am wondering what that bodes for his own study. I get the impression that many honest people sent in what they really believed was physical evidence from Sasquatch, the best of the best, so is there any reason to think the evidence sent to him will be better?

This was likely my biggest motivator in my efforts to question Melba and show that her results were out of step with the facts we had in hand. I was worried that all the viable evidence out there would be sucked into this vortex, and that these samples would then not be available for more credentialed undertakings such as Sykes' project. I think this may be the biggest and worst 'legacy' or side-effect of the Ketchum study.

I and other women on this forum would appreciate it if the posters would please think before they post. Women have contributed as much to science and the arts as men. It's attitudes like this that really push us over the edge and I'm trying to keep my composure while typing this.

For instance, Melba is a scientist who did the research, get over it. But she had at least 11 other labs working on the samples as well, blind studies, the labs had no idea what it was. They weren't told anything.

Peace

I guess I have not seen the posts that are making you write this, but I have to interject here that any man who conducted themselves as Melba has, or presented the study in the manner that Melba has, would face just as harsh of criticism. Your post was actually the first time that I even considered the fact that this study came from a woman.

[Guest]

I and other women on this forum would appreciate it if the posters would please think before they post. Women have contributed as much to science and the arts as men. It's attitudes like this that really push us over the edge and I'm trying to keep my composure while typing this.

For instance, Melba is a scientist who did the research, get over it. But she had at least 11 other labs working on the samples as well, blind studies, the labs had no idea what it was. They weren't told anything.

Peace

[Guest]

From this article: http://bf-field-jour...tchum.html#more

This brings up something I have been wondering about for a long time. Some of these "samples" have been around a while... Sitting in someones home. How could they NOT be contaminated? Does Melba's paper say anything about when the samples were collected? How or does she address collection methods, preservation techniques and chain of evidence employed by each of the sample providers in her paper?

Aren't you speculating that the samples was not stored according to sort of protocol. According one article that I read (might have been on the C2C show) details of how procedures were done to be sure of no contamination took place. Even samples of the individual personal were taken who worked on the samples.

I believe that there is so much speculation (negative) going on, that all this is doing is going to make this more and more difficult to find the answers too. I've already seen here just on this board, where articles were posted that explained many of the "I need to know questions-before I will believe", and people are going full circle and coming back to the starting point for the speculations to start another round of "I need to know questions-before I will believe."

Mercy, many of the questions appear to be valid. If I had slept at an Holiday Inn Express it would easier for me to get a better grasp on the concerns. Yet, I can wait for those answers. The wheels of truth takes a long time to travel the circuit before a favorable outcome appears. As of yet, I haven't seen any critics demonstrate a need to find at least one piece of information on the paper (the science involved with what has been published) where MK did something that is in her favor.

[Guest]

I am just happy that Sykes will be looking at the DNA data. It is hard to believe any chicken salad will come from this... um, mess... but if there is anything to salvage I am sure somebody with those credentials can wring it out.

Should he pronounce the findings as baseless, I am wondering what that bodes for his own study. I get the impression that many honest people sent in what they really believed was physical evidence from Sasquatch, the best of the best, so is there any reason to think the evidence sent to him will be better?

The different fields for getting your name up on the Big Board with blinding lights is not uncommon. I'm just as gleeful as the next average individual that some scientists are taking a closer look at the MK results. The results that they can verify, may help them in the results that they are seeking. My only concern, is those scientists that will use MK's data, and rework it and possible try to say it was them that find the correct answer. Will this be done, I don't know, but we all probably at one time or another have seen it. Look at all the commotion over who actually started Facebook...

I think the majority of people aren't going to except any findings (verification of the DNA results of MK's paper) from an average Joe who is well verse in DNA testing. It's going to take a well known "Lights of Broadway" type of scientists for verification of the DNA....and even then, I suspect there will be someone who doubts.

[southernyahoo]

Melba's choice to use human genetic structure to inform her assembly of the contigs, seems to be without any basis, other than preconceived desires to see this animal be classified as "human." I have no doubt that this anthropomorphic bias has 'contaminated' most of her research. Perhaps some of it will still hold up.

Actually it is quite logical when you find human mtDNA to use that as a reference in assembly of nuDNA sequences. If she had a sample from a fully human source that's what you would find in the nuDNA and high similarity when some other ape is in the mix. There should not be unknown novel sequences there , from an unknown contaminator but there is. Also, the next generation software assembled the sequence with 30X coverage, did it not?

This was likely my biggest motivator in my efforts to question Melba and show that her results were out of step with the facts we had in hand. I was worried that all the viable evidence out there would be sucked into this vortex, and that these samples would then not be available for more credentialed undertakings such as Sykes' project. I think this may be the biggest and worst 'legacy' or side-effect of the Ketchum study.

Sykes only wanted 20 or so samples, to include some from other countries, if he's missing out on some, it's on him to make another round later.

[Guest]

Ridgerunner, first I wanted to say thank you for answering my questions so kindly..

New question - and anyone who has knowledge can answer.

I have been sitting here for about 20 minutes (or more) trying to figure out how to ask this question - and not get into hot water. But, I think it's relevant and I can't come up with another way to say it - so I am just going to say it..

If Melba approached this work with the idea firmly planted in her mind that Bigfoot was in fact human - could that have some how skewed how she has interpreted the results of the testing? OR did she have to start out with a specific premise (Bigfoot is human) to even know where to start? How exactly does this work when a scientist is trying to determine a new species through DNA?

I have been giving this some thought, and yes I thing there is human bias. I feel there is bias in the writing, but also in the design, with use of human primers and the use of human chromosome 11 for alignment. There was use of more degenerate primers, but none of the sequences were provided and even exactly what they were amplifying in some case was deemed proprietary. Based on this it is possible that somethings could have been overlooked. If the end product made sense to me, I probably would say there was bias but MK got it right.

Earlier you mentioned the length of storage and storage conditions, and I think this is an interesting point. Any living tissues/hair/toenail etc will have bacteria and fungi on it at some level. The longer this is stored, the more likely this will add to the makeup of the final DNA pool. Things that are stored very cold or very dry, tend to prevent this growth. And while contaminants tend to grow on the surface, I am not sure they can not migrate into the tissue (sorry for the double negative).

The different fields for getting your name up on the Big Board with blinding lights is not uncommon. I'm just as gleeful as the next average individual that some scientists are taking a closer look at the MK results. The results that they can verify, may help them in the results that they are seeking. My only concern, is those scientists that will use MK's data, and rework it and possible try to say it was them that find the correct answer. Will this be done, I don't know, but we all probably at one time or another have seen it. Look at all the commotion over who actually started Facebook...

I think the majority of people aren't going to except any findings (verification of the DNA results of MK's paper) from an average Joe who is well verse in DNA testing. It's going to take a well known "Lights of Broadway" type of scientists for verification of the DNA....and even then, I suspect there will be someone who doubts.

If MK did get it wrong, and someone uses the data to get it right, does MK deserve credit? Not for the answer, certainly. She does most certainly deserve credit for undertaking this work. I previously made a comment that she should be shopping her data around for a qualified collaborator, where they can publish as co-authors. But this publication in DeNovo will stand as her work, and IF it is wrong, it is her (and the other authors) issue to deal with.

[Guest slimwitless]

Well, you could explain it as all coming from modern humans living in North America.

Well, that seems like a distinct possibility, doesn't it? I should have qualified my statement.

If there were fewer haplotypes the theory might be more believable. Perhaps only some of the samples are from sasquai.

[Guest]

Dude. Let's not use sasqui. Haha.

[MIB]

Melba's choice to use human genetic structure to inform her assembly of the contigs, seems to be without any basis, other than preconceived desires to see this animal be classified as "human." I have no doubt that this anthropomorphic bias has 'contaminated' most of her research. Perhaps some of it will still hold up.

I'll disagree with you. Since the mito came back 100% modern human, it is perfect reasonable to begin looking at the nuclear from a modern human standpoint. In fact, I'd argue that any other approach would be less rational. If the other "parent" were identifiable, then I'd say she should revisit reconstruction of the nuclear from a "that-centric" perspective, but anything other than what she did at the time would be just ... random. (It would be interesting to try to reassemble the DNA using the assumption of black bear and see where that leads.)

MIB

(Oops .. SY, just saw your reply. Cool!)

Edited February 22, 2013 by MIB

[Cotter]

^ x 2 Hoosier

[TimB]

From her first press release:

DALLAS,

Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study,

currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid

species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America.

Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a

human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of

modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

I know that a number of people her have interpreted her comments and her results as representing ongoing hybridization, but has she ever said this herself. If so I would love to see that quote.

I can't quote it and my memory's terrible, but I believe that she has mentioned ongoing infusions of human contributors:).

I might have even jumped to the conclusion because of someone related to her work talking about the ongoing influx of sapien sapien blood due to kidnap, etc.

If what they are saying is true, it makes sense. That's a big if though.

[Guest]

Ridgerunner said:

Earlier you mentioned the length of storage and storage conditions, and I think this is an interesting point. Any living tissues/hair/toenail etc will have bacteria and fungi on it at some level. The longer this is stored, the more likely this will add to the makeup of the final DNA pool. Things that are stored very cold or very dry, tend to prevent this growth. And while contaminants tend to grow on the surface, I am not sure they can not migrate into the tissue (sorry for the double negative).

Does she specifically address the storage or the preservation of the samples? Does she discuss the chain of evidence?

Also, Melba stated she took DNA samples from each of the submitters - does she show anything in her paper as to their make up like "Eastern European" or even a general description to show the submitter of the sample was not the source of contamination?

[Guest Tyler H]

Actually it is quite logical when you find human mtDNA to use that as a reference in assembly of nuDNA sequences. If she had a sample from a fully human source that's what you would find in the nuDNA and high similarity when some other ape is in the mix. There should not be unknown novel sequences there , from an unknown contaminator but there is. Also, the next generation software assembled the sequence with 30X coverage, did it not?

Sykes only wanted 20 or so samples, to include some from other countries, if he's missing out on some, it's on him to make another round later.

Given that both Bart's lab and my lab came up with very clear evidence that the human DNA present is from the human handlers of the samples (ie, Justin, in our case), I have to disagree with this. And, given that both of our labs identified his samples as bear tissue, I think using bear as the reference to assemble the contigs would have been more logical.

Well, that seems like a distinct possibility, doesn't it? I should have qualified my statement.

If there were fewer haplotypes the theory might be more believable. Perhaps only some of the samples are from sasquai.

Please, no Sasquai. Richard Stubstad tried to get this going, and though I liked the guy, I believe I succeeded in talking him out of trying this nonsense.

Dude. Let's not use sasqui. Haha.

Tried to "plus" you for that, but couldn't so I'll just say "same here!"

I'll disagree with you. Since the mito came back 100% modern human, it is perfect reasonable to begin looking at the nuclear from a modern human standpoint. In fact, I'd argue that any other approach would be less rational. If the other "parent" were identifiable, then I'd say she should revisit reconstruction of the nuclear from a "that-centric" perspective, but anything other than what she did at the time would be just ... random. (It would be interesting to try to reassemble the DNA using the assumption of black bear and see where that leads.)

MIB

(Oops .. SY, just saw your reply. Cool!)

See my answer to SY. The other "parent" WAS identifiable. It was bear. Bear was found to be the primary contributor, and has been found to play a major role in the genome that Melba mapped from Justin's sample. I will be posting even further on that shortly.

Ridgerunner said:

Does she specifically address the storage or the preservation of the samples? Does she discuss the chain of evidence?

Also, Melba stated she took DNA samples from each of the submitters - does she show anything in her paper as to their make up like "Eastern European" or even a general description to show the submitter of the sample was not the source of contamination?

I think you know this Melissa, but for others:

I don't know about the other contributors, but she does NOT have DNA from Justin. I've always said that that was unacceptable that 1 of her 3 genomes, and the one that seemed to garner the most attention, was never tested against the supplier's DNA.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Tyler H

[bipedalist]

.....Well, according to the above quote - she can't ever release those peer reviews - less she be hauled into court and have the snot sued out of her. So, I don't understand why she needed to buy that journal so bad.

Exactly, if the peer reviewers are anonymous and the public and scientists are blinded to the reviews (question mark), then there would have been no need for her to go to an online purchase...... she could have sold the thing as a monograph on any homegrown site her little heart desired to settle on. Same impact, same effect without the smoke and mirrors, perhaps.

Now, if real scientists, with real academic affiliations or credentials say they read the reviews of the suspect journal and they did pass review...... what does that really mean since nobody knows what this prior journal engaged in from a scientific publication standpoint?

More conundrum, lack of transparency and fishiness if you ask me. Maybe the independent review, if posted up in proper format, can redeem something, maybe not.

Edited February 22, 2013 by bipedalist